Below is a guest post by Amanda Beattie, commenting on the impact of UK's family immigration rules on children.
Amanda is a Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at Aston University and Co-Editor at ISA Compendium, Ethics Section.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Making
Children’s
Voices Heard
It appears that there is an emerging hierarchy in the
discussions of children’s rights in the
UK. While family law, and its associated
institutions, puts the wellbeing of the child at the heart of its negotiations,
migration legislation does not. Children
in the UK whose families are subject to immigration controls, owing to their
mixed citizenship heritage, lack a voice.
In September 2015 the Children’s
Commissioner in the United Kingdom released Skype Families. This document reflects on the 160 page
report, Family Friendly?[2]
it commissioned looking into the wellbeing of UK children affected by the 2012
amendments to Family Immigration rules.
The document provided clear evidence of how the separation of children
from at least one parent is detrimental to their wellbeing.
The report indicates that since 2012 an estimated 15,000
children have been separated from their parents because they do not meet the
income requirements of family migration requirements. This separation, they show, is in direct
contravention to the duty of care that the state owes to its child
citizens. States are charged with
protecting children in Article Three of the Conventions on the Rights of the
Child. Section one clearly states that:
In
all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social
welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative
bodies, the best interest of the child shall be primary consideration.[3]
The evidence within the report suggest, according to John
Vine (the former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration) that
since the new income requirements came into effect in 2013, only one decision
maker in approximately 60 cases, heeded this call.
This, I believe, is deeply troubling; but, what is more
troubling, is that there is, within the UK judiciary, an acknowledged need to
keep children with their parents. I
point to the recently decided case of a child, both of whose parents live
within the UK, but whose mother wanted to move to Hong Kong with her son. This would remove him from daily contact with
his father. The Judge, Mr. Justice Wood,
denies the mother permission to leave, after her legal representation suggested
the use of modern technologies would supplant daily contact between the father
and son. Justice Wood suggests;
The
disadvantages of Skype - as any user will know - are all too often the lack of
clarity of image, the sound delay even if short, and, as counsel colourfully
notes in her closing submissions, ‘you
can’t hug Skype’.
He continues:
This
is a case where a father, despite obstacles, has built up a very good and
profound attachment to his son. The
mother’s proposals to relocate - even if her
proposals for visits, telephone calls and Skype calls are carried out - in
practice do not make up for these losses.[4]
Within this decision there is evidence of the child’s
best interest being taken into account.
Justice Wood suggests, in his decision, that both the child and the
father would suffer is they were not in the same geographic location.
What I wonder is why in this case? If it is so clear that such technologies do
not suffice to maintain family relations long distance, why do we force other
separated families to rely on such technologies to build family bonds,
especially when they are not always readily available.
In another publication, Love Letters to the Home Office,
the inability of Skype to enhance family relations is rendered poignantly and
despairingly. One father recounts what
it is to live in the UK while his wife and two children live in Peru.
We
wanted to bring our children up experiencing both of our cultures, but I had no
choice but to leave Peru in July 2013 because of financial difficulties.
I
talk to Vanessa daily, but Skype is a luxury only available in the city centre,
which means I rarely see my children.
Sometimes, when I do, Olenka is indifferent, not wanting to talk. Other times, she’s excited, saying ‘Hola,
Papi, vamos al parquet?’ those
are the times that fill my heart with joy.
We
have cried often, in despair for our future.
We have cried over not sharing those magical moments that will never
return. Moments gone forever. Moments like my children’s first days at school.[5]
The overwhelmingly clear differences in these two cases
seems to be geographical and institutional.
The Judge decided to keep a child in the UK where his two parents both
already reside, even though the mother grew up in Hong Kong. This decision, most notably, was made in
family court. For families who live
across international boundaries they must rely on immigration tribunals to make
their case. Within these institutional
channels, the wellbeing of the child seems to play an insignificant role, even
though the harm of separation is (potentially) the same.
As I reflect on these two experiences I am reminded of the
writings of Onora O’Neill.[6] She has published on the idea of children and
rights and wonders if rights are the best way to protect children. She reminds us that rights, for those who
lack a voice, must be interpreted by those who have one. Children’s
rights are caught up in hierarchies of power that may, from time to time,
forget who they ought to help.
The 2012
family migration amendments were supposedly brought in to lessen the number of
migrant families who rely on welfare and social support. As Skype Families makes clear, this
has not been its result. The voice of
the child, within the migrant struggles in the UK, is one that is over-looked
while the voice of the child is contradictorily heard in family courts.
We must ensure that until such a time that
the family migration rules, and in particular the income requirement, are
rescinded the voice of the children in mixed citizenship families is heard loud
and clear and that there are no hierarchies emerging within the protection of a
child’s best interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment